“Every single one of us is good at something. Some of us just give up on what that is before we even discover it. “

=

William Chapman

—- “I told her once i wasn’t good at anything.

She told me survival is a talent. You never need to apologize for how you chose to survive.”

=

Clementine von Radics

—

“To paraphrase someone smarter than me, who still knows nothing, the philosophical task of our age is for each of us to decide what it means to be a successful human being.

I don’t know the answer to that, but I would like to find out.”

=

Ottmer <the futurist>

—

Well. Let me begin by saying, well, being better is better.

Or better said: better is good.

In addition. Being good at something is good.

Those are two basic Life thoughts. Simple thoughts, but kind of important thoughts. Important because they are pervasive throughout civilization, culture, attitudes and certainly drives behavior.

Now. The most basic aspect of this whole thing of people wanting to be really good at something and, I imagine why people want to be passionate about something, is that they have experience with lack of passion. I say that last thought because <here is a Life truth> the reason why we’re not passionate about stuff we’re not really good at is because we aren’t <cannot be> passionate about stuff we suck at.

Here is where it gets a little screwy. Being good at something is a minefield mentally.

Huh? What do you mean <you ask me>??

How many times have you heard some version of the following phrases?

• “Everyone has a special skill!“

• “You just need to practice!“

• “You haven’t tried everything yet!“

• “You better work out what special skill you have and then use it for the rest of your life because if you don’t you’ll live in a dumpster fighting with cats for food!“

That trite advice is fine for people who are good at things, but what if you just suck at everything?

<or at least have sucked at everything you have tried to date>

Well. Here is the good news. It is next to impossible to suck at everything. It is much more likely that “… some of us just give up on what that is before we even discover it.”

As a corollary, in reality, it’s impossible to be good at every single thing you try.

Oh. But that doesn’t necessarily mean you suck. It’s all about perspective and how you define whether you’re good at something. For instance, are you basing how bad you are at something on your own standards or are you comparing yourself to others? If it’s the latter then you need to stop and remind yourself that we are all individuals. You’re not inferior or inept, you’re just different <kind of like snowflakes … okay … maybe not>.

Suffice it to say that insecurities and doubts limit your potential <regardless of whether you suck or are actually good> so if you intend to succeed at something you must first get rid of them.

Ah. But here is the curve ball Life throws at you <or is it a screwball??> — while you are figuring out what you are good at a whole shit load of incompetent assholes around you are trying to convince everyone what they are good at <of which they are actually not good at what they think they are>.

Incompetent people don’t know they are incompetent <in other words … they don’t think they suck>.

——

When asked, most individuals will describe themselves as better-than-average in areas such as leadership, social skills, written expression, or just about anything where the individual has an interest.

This tendency of the average person to believe he or she is better-than-average is known as the “above-average effect,” and it flies in the face of logic … by definition, descriptive statistics says that it is impossible absurdly improbable for a majority of people to be above average.

It follows, therefore, that a large number of the self-described “above average” individuals are in fact below average in those areas, and they are simply unaware of their incompetence.

——-

It seems that the reason for this phenomenon is obvious:

– The more incompetent someone is in a particular area, the less qualified that person is to assess anyone’s skill in that space, including their own.

– When one fails to recognize that he or she has performed poorly, the individual is left assuming that they have performed well.

Anyway. What this means is that the incompetent tend to grossly overestimate their skills and abilities.

—

“He felt he was himself and did not want to be otherwise. He only wanted to be better than he had been before. “

Leo Tolstoy

—

The Department of Psychology at Cornell University made an effort to determine just how profoundly one mistakenly overestimates one’s own skills in relation to one’s actual abilities.

They made the following predictions before the studies:

– Incompetent individuals, compared with their more competent peers, will dramatically overestimate their ability and performance relative to objective criteria.

– Incompetent individuals will suffer from deficient metacognitive skills, in that they will be less able than their more competent peers to recognize competence when they see it–be it their own or anyone else’s.

– Incompetent individuals will be less able than their more competent peers to gain insight into their true level of performance by means of social comparison information. In particular, because of their difficulty recognizing competence in others, incompetent individuals will be unable to use information about the choices and performances of others to form more accurate impressions of their own ability.

Rather than showcase the study and the results let me just say … they were correct in their assumptions.

Look. While I have spent a lot of time talking about incompetence and the incompetent, there is nothing more beautiful than watching competence in action. Especially if they are just good, not great, and have the awareness to build on their good in pursuit of … well … not great … but something better.

—-

“No one is good at everything, but everyone is good at something.”

any after school 1990’s special

—-

“Sucking is the first step to being sorta good at something”

Thorin Klosowski

—

And maybe that is why competence <or being good> is so beautiful to watch … it is the pursuit.

The pursuit? Being good at something mostly means you weren’t as good, or even sucked, at some point. This means the true competent people keep pushing.

Being good at something means no dumb questions, no dumb answers and no low <or stagnant> standards. And that is where I believe the whole concept of ‘being good at something’ should be grounded.

It’s not passion.

And, frankly, it may not even be something that comes easily to you.

It is more about holding yourself to some higher standard.

It is about the desire to keep pushing.

It is about being responsible for not quitting.

—-

“Hold yourself responsible for a higher standard than anybody else expects of you, never excuse yourself.”

Henry Ward Beecher

—–

In the end. Set aside ‘higher standards’ or ‘accepting you are good at something’ … in the end I respect … well … caring.

Giving a shit.

Or maybe call it … ‘nerdy as fuck about something.’

—-

“I respect people who get nerdy as fuck about something they love.”

Leah Raeder

——-

Caring enough about what you do is a good thing … and it makes you good at something.

It’s not passion.

It’s maybe not any real ability.

It’s just about the fact that you care.

By the way. Getting back to the first quote I used.

This also suggests, on those tough days and tough stretches in Life, simple survival is a talent because it means you care about Life.

Uhm. And that is a good thing to be good at.

Care about Life and never, never, apologize for how you choose to survive.

Ok. I do not believe in New Year’s resolutions <although I do believe in wishing on stars>. But that is me.

Everyone else?

I have heard somewhere in the vicinity of 90% of people in the US make wishes at New Years.

Maybe 75% of those people are drunk and only 39% remember the wishes <that’s about 37% of total population if you didn’t have your abacus>.

Uhm. Hope you didn’t waste your time on the math because it doesn’t mean shit. It doesn’t mean shit because chief wish dispenser, Jiminy Cricket, is no longer with us. This rumor has been with us for years. The demise of Jiminy Cricket has typically attributed to that lying bastard Pinocchio <although Pinocchio himself was caught in a tragic situation where Luigi was snowbound after a freak Italian blizzard and needed some wood to boil water for pasta or starve to death>.

Anyway. Jiminy was thriving and dispensing wishes upon stars (especially busy on New Year’s eves) for many years. Hence the reason so many of you actually did have wishes come true on occasion. Unfortunately, while newspapers seem to miss it, Jiminy quietly passed away several years ago from lingering complications from DDT exposure before it was outlawed as a pesticide. Therefore. If you wished upon a star this New Year’s eve you are screwed.

Sorry. Next year skip the wish and just have another cocktail.

I would note that beyond making wishes come true he was also a spokescricket for Insects International, the group that provides relief to insects that have lost their homes to natural disasters.

In addition, in his last years Jiminy had been doing some volunteer work for the Pentagon in Afghanistan. It is a little known fact but al Qaeda are big wishers on stars and Jiminy was doing his part to provide some wish misdirection.

<note: the Pentagon has no comment>

At one point, after hearing of Jiminy’s loss, Osama Bin Laden was quoted as saying ‘we will now have to create our own falling stars.’

<CIA has not commented on threat status to civilization>

With all that said.

We wish Jiminy the best.

And know, if you wished upon a star this New Year’s Eve, it won’t come true.

“There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.”

—

Niccolo Machiavelli

===========

“For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order.”

—

Niccolò Machiavelli

======

So. This is a discussion I had with myself recently with regard to change and creating a new order of things.

The mental discussion centered on two questions:

is it really chaos <blank slate change> ?

or is it more often reordering <assigning disparate ‘things’ into a new alignment> ?

I thought about this as I scanned the words of two of the most skewered policy makers of all time – Machiavelli and Kissinger. King makers and country breakers are thoughts that come to mind with those two names.

And, yet, both Diplomacy <Kissinger> and The Prince <Machiavelli> are must reads for anyone interested in foreign policy and diplomatic leadership. They both made me rethink some things I have thought about change and leading it.

The main thing I thought of was … well … the ‘leading’ part. Leading is what leaders do. That’s what you get paid to do. You see where you want the business to go, look at what needs to change to make it happen and then start leading the change.

Both Kissinger and Machiavelli discussed this as ‘shaping the arc of history.’ I would imagine neither would balk at a statement like this …“we will move forward, because if we do not move forward, what is to be said about us?”

Now.

If you read any Machiavelli he can come across as an arrogant immoral power hungry egotistical asshat.

If you read any Kissinger he can come across as an arrogant immoral power hungry egotistical asshat.

But both also can be read as incredibly smart insightful global thinkers whose mindset was always shaping the arc of history and countries rather than adapting to the world at hand. It is within the ‘shaping’ where both of them identified leadership. Their version of ‘shaping’ meant doing things to instigate change as well as envisioning what could be and stepping in to guide toward it or stop it from happening <which is easy to criticize in reflecting>.

Machiavelli unequivocally espoused an amoral approach to obtaining power and counseled the ambitious Prince to be prepared to commit heinous acts, acts most of us would not consider viable actions to take, in order to rise in position.

I am not espousing that.

The bigger learnings arise as you dig a little deeper into what he writes where you will find the wiser kernels of truth.

The biggest truth? To be a reformer, to be a change agent, to lead in the introduction of a new order of things, well, you have to shape the arc of change that others are instigating.

Ah. Now this is where I had to start doing some rethinking in my own head. While I do prescribe to the ‘shape the arc of history & change’ leadership thought, I, as most of us do, see this as envisioning and creating the necessary change not shaping the arc of change. This is where change leadership gets tricky <if you accept that a leader wants to shape the arc of change>.

There are millions of articles, billions of pieces of advice, hundreds of designed programs and dozens of studied cases with regard to leading change. Leadership change is big time business.

Well. Here is the problem with all that change wisdom.

Unfortunately.

Most change is actually not leader driven, but rather people driven.

Yeah. Sometimes we, as leaders, are so focused on the change we want to make or encourage we ignore, or are oblivious to, the never-ending embers of change within the population of the business.

And, yes, I purposefully used “embers.”

Every healthy organization is teeming with ideas of what should be done as well as about what is being done — let’s call these ‘the embers within the population.’ Inevitably the embers will die, flame up and then out or become a forest fire. Part of what a leader needs to discern is which fires will flame out on their own, which flames may start burning uncontrollably and which fires should be nurtured.

But, suffice it to say, embers exist in any organization and population worth a shit. Some is discontent, some may simply be passion that just needs to be directed & focused and some, well, some are the embers of a real revolution <real change>. And even revolution can take on different faces.

There can be an organizational changing revolution — one which demands leadership to change or die.

There can be an organizational shifting revolution — one which demands the leadership to recognize a new & better way of doing things or thinking about things.

But when change comes from the population … leaders get uncomfortable. This discomfort is beyond the simple ‘it was not my idea’ crap.

Think about it this way.

A leader’s natural reaction to almost anything is to control.

Out of control = bad.

Control = good.

The difficulty with people driven change is that it automatically falls into the ‘out of control’ bucket in a leaders head because they <a> didn’t think of it or <b> they didn’t instigate it or <c> they didn’t even create the arc.

This is where I really needed to think. Because, as a leader, I could discuss leadership driven change until the end of time. But managing and guiding and fostering population driven change? Well. That’s different. Other than ‘idea boxes’ and ‘brain storming meetings’ and ‘organizational improvement ideas’ most of us leader types don’t actively think about change management as ‘employee revolution management.’

It demands a different set of skills. You would have to dump many of the tried & true tools. You would have to maybe not throw out the old handbook of ‘change management’, but you certainly have to put on more of a ‘herder cap’ and a ‘respond to the context and situation hat’ rather than leading and ‘linear responses.’

Now. I will suggest that any leader who wants to keep their sanity shouldn’t invest a shitload of energy trying to uncover embers. I would rather suggest time is better spent continuously feeding oxygen into the population so that the embers which could flame up do so and the ones which will inevitably suffocate and smother themselves will do so on their own.

<everyone should note that dictator and autocrat type leaders would absolutely hate that last thought>

Good leaders just need to face the fact that sometimes opportunity does not always arise when you want it to. Sometimes you need to create the opportunity <because it is the right time for you> and sometimes you have shape the opportunity that is placed in your lap.

I will say that population revolutions, more often than not, are grounded in some real pragmatic and positive thoughts. The direction may be misguided but the embers are real and warm and worth nurturing.

I say that because this means revolutions driven by people more often than not exist in a structured world, not chaos, defined by some natural laws of behavior which are sometimes missed because of the revolutionary weird, incredible things that begin happening. A leader has to try to make sense of all aspects and bring the worlds together to create the necessary change <in this case … this is where the leadership occurs and not in the definition of the change>.

I will also suggest, as I think about his, it is often not productive to try to understand and explain the origins and consequences of ‘embers’ in any sensible way.

It is not productive because where you isolate the ‘logical beginnings’ you will most likely be creating ‘logic’ which wasn’t really there — it only exists in hindsight. That thought can be maddening to a leader. We like logic, pragmatism and reasons to point to. But change, when driven by the population, is not your change to define … it is to guide.

The reasons are the reasons, their reasons are their reasons … but as long as the change is reasonable and offers a reason to encourage … the origins have little relevance. You have to jump on board, buckle up, hold on tight and shape an arc of history, of change, which you do not instigate but want to ‘lead.’

In all of this <going back to both Kissinger & Machiavelli> I am not advocating suspending commonplace ethics as a means to achieve your ends, but I will suggest innovating and radical change is hard. It’s hard not because people don’t like change but because, more often than not, real change translates into real loss to those embracing the ‘old order.’ Humans, in general, have a strong aversion to loss and those who actually have a lot to lose … well … they have a lot stronger aversion to loss.

That means they will do their best to resist and block it.

Uhm. That includes us leaders too.

If it is revolution change, change driven by the population and not by us, we actually have the potential to lose a lot. And to grasp this opportunity you have to face your natural strong aversion to the potential loss. This is where I believe Kissinger& Machiavelli missed a point <well … they may not have missed it … their vision was always to shape and not adapt to what is being shaped>.

You cannot always control everything. Sometimes you have to choose what you will control and accept what you cannot.

And that is why I vehemently balk when Machiavelli counsels leaders to avoid the common values of justice, mercy, temperance, wisdom, and love of their people in preference to the use of cruelty, violence, fear, and deception. That is a sign of ‘control everything’ to, me …and control at any cost.

I don’t buy it. I don’t like it. And I will not do it.

While Machiavelli certainly views implementing a ‘new order’ under the guise of a realist or a pragmatist, I believe there are certain rules of engagement that must be maintained to insure an outcome that retains some purpose <and soul> beyond simple greed or personal enhancement.

Change comes from a variety of directions. And I can almost guarantee that you, as a leader, are not the only ones facing major strategic decisions – in general and with change. You can assume all actors in the play are contemplating change & decisions <hence the embers>. And every ember is building to their fire in some fundamental way. Deciding its place in the order of things. deciding the goals of any confrontations. Deciding its purpose. Deciding its meaning and, ultimately, deciding the meaning of their revolution and grappling with an aftermath often difficult to envision.

That is where this type of change leadership occurs. Envisioning the aftermath of something you didn’t instigate. Envisioning your relationship to a revolution not fully settled and not fully defined.

You have to assume the responsibility of a signpost to an awakened change which is being driven by the needs & wants & desires of the general population/people. This actually means you have got to fundamentally rethink who you are as a leader as well as how you envision your role as a leader. In this case leading means envisioning where it all goes rather than having thought out where it goes <and pointing the way>.

A change agent leader responding to a desire for revolution needs shed some of the current situation where it’s appropriate and convert the embers & fire into efforts to stop the bad and force the good.

Look.

Taking the lead in the introduction of a new order of things can take on a variety of leadership vectors. One is creating & shaping and another is guiding & shaping.

Yet, time, is indifferent to what you want and moves the same pace all the time.”

—

Me

======

How long do projects take? This is possibly one of the most discussed topics in business conferences room around the world. “More time” is possibly the most used phrase in those meeting rooms. Which gets me to “100” and what was known as Napoleon’s Hundred Days campaign to point out how much shit can be done in 100 days and some thoughts on the challenges a great leader has <and leadership in general>.

Oh. First. History.

After kicking the crap out of almost every country and general for over a decade or so Napoleon abdicates his throne and on May 4, 1814 Napoleon is exiled to the exotically barren island of Elba. After kicking around on this miserable little island for a while Napoleon realizes that retirement ain’t as cracked up as people made it out to be and in February 1815 he says “the heck with retirement … I miss the whole leadership thing <that I was pretty darn good at>”and high tails it off the island.

Napoleon did what he always did when he was in trouble and what he was <frankly> great at, he went on the offensive. With his newly raised army of around 75000 troops, he attacked Belgium, where the British and Prussian armies were camped. His hope was that he could separately destroy these armies before the Russians and Austrians arrived. The British army was commanded by the Duke of Wellington and the Prussian army was commanded by Marshal Gebhard Blucher. The French army engaged the Prussians first at Ligny, on June 16, 1815. The battle was either a slight win for Napoleon or just relatively indecisive <although imminently winnable by Napoleon should a domino or two fallen his way> and both sides regrouped.

Napoleon decided next to attack the English, then at Waterloo, a village near Brussels.

On June 18 1815, the British and the Prussians defeated Napoleon. The British/Prussian victory signaled the end of a more-than-ten- year period filled with war <and a boatload of Napoeon victories>.

At Waterloo, Napoleon had 72,000 troops, Wellington commanded 68,000 troops, and Blucher 45,000 <this becomes relevant later when I point out that “they” had more resources than “he”>.

Suffice it to say there were a boatload of good and iffy decisions made by both sides, but maybe the biggest was because the ground was muddy on the day of the battle Napoleon made the critical decision of waiting for the ground to dry before attacking Wellington’s forces in the afternoon. This delay allowed Blucher’s forces to reach Waterloo in time to make a difference in the outcome of the battle. While the French made assault after assault on the British, they were slow to make progress, and Blucher’s Prussians advanced against the French army’s eastern flank.

Marshal Ney, one of Napoleon’s best commanders <called ‘the bravest of the brave’>, orchestrated a combined attack of soldiers and artillery, and came very close to breaking Wellington’s line. However, Napoleon could not reinforce Ney’s attack, since he was forced to divert a large number of troops from fighting the British, including his crack Imperial Guard, in order to face the Prussians.

Now. Second. Let me try and make several points relevant to business and projects.

100 days.

A shitload can happen in 100 days if you know what you are doing, are a good leader and have a great support <management> team. In fact you can gather almost 100,000 personnel and the materials needed to sustain them and move them hundreds of miles and get them to perform at the highest level if you really have your shit together.

My first point. 100 days is a lifetime if you use it well. Businesses can dither around and make excuses, but if you cannot get something done in 100 days you should probably be looking for some other business to conduct.

If someone <Napoleon> can swing almost 100,000 men into action and in a span of three or four days of battle at the end of 100 days almost win a victory when outnumbered and outresourced, it seems pretty logical that we in business can certainly make a widget in 100 days.

My second point. 100 days doesn’t have a huge margin for error when doing something big and important.

Everything has to happen fairly efficiently and everyone has to be aligned.

It helps when you have a tried & true team in place. The right people at the right place at the right time. Not just the workers but the management too.

In today’s business this is the trickiest.

100 days is a lifetime if you have the right team.

100 days and you can still have victory <not just show up or ‘get it done’> if you have the right team.

100 days never seems like enough if you lose … ponder that … because I see too many times when it doesn’t end well that a business will sit around and say “if we only had more time!” … 100 days was not enough.

Baloney. It wasn’t the time. It was the team.

The importance of the <management> team:

It seems rarely mentioned but Napoleon not only glimpsed victory at Waterloo … it was his to be had. I will let all the military experts tear apart the minutiae in the decisions made that day. From a business perspective the key to the loss <to me> was simple. Napoleon didn’t have his tried & true chief of staff, Marshal Berthier, on this campaign. Napoleon sorely missed the legendary Marshal Berthier as chief of staff, and Marshal Soult <his replacement> was a good, but not as good, substitute.

Oh. And there was a domino effect on the entire management team as people shifted to assume slightly new roles.

Napoleon was the master at making on field decisions and yet permitting independent decisionmaking — empowering his best to do their best. And, let’s be clear, Napoleon possibly built the greatest team outside of the 1927 New York Yankees <murderers Row>. By Waterloo several stood on the sidelines, were dead or were managing from a different role than they were accustomed to. But. Napoleon’s management team, his marshals and generals below the marshals, were the best of the best.

Now. It is possible Napoleon should have shifted his management style to accommodate the shift in the personnel, but that is speculative thinking <because if he shifted his style who knows how that would have affected everything else>.

100 days would have been nothing if the team was in place.

Whoa. So I am suggesting one person … and not even ‘the leader’ can make that big a difference?

You bet. In business this chief of staff person is:

<a> reviled by the young employees as old, conservative and an order taker for the leader,

<b> loved & hated by middle management as they love the fact this person deciphers the vague but inspirational thinking of the leader and gives them the specifics on what to do but hates that this person is not the most creative thinker in the room and is always bitching about why you cannot have the resources you claim you need to do the job you are being given, and

<c> appreciated by the leader because this person can decipher what you are really thinking, get people to do it and while maddeningly conservative <versus the leader> they have a tendency to stop the leader from doing something too incredibly stupid <or risky>.

This person is key to the success of a great leader and an organization. Napoleon saw things on a battlefield that no one else could ever see. He could see things before they happened. But that kind of person <as a general or in business> needs someone to coordinate and corral the incredibly talented independent thinkers & managers who will actually implement the vision. And it takes a while to learn how to decipher a truly visionary leader.

Soult was a good general but probably a novice decipherer. In addition by shifting Soult into chief of staff all the other marshals began assuming different roles & responsibilities.

You get it. You need someone to decipher as well as you need someone to implement and in a 100 days it helps if the people who know what to do are in familiar roles.

How a leader is judged:

Yes. This matters in getting things done because, well, if you lose you are a loser and are inevitably second guessed.

Napoleon was arguably the greatest general in history <if you want to be nitpicky you could say the greatest offensive general in history>. I am probably wrong but I struggle to think of one battle in his history that Napoleon had more resources <men & artillery> than his enemy and yet he constantly drove on the offensive … and won.

No leader has ever done more with less than Napoleon.

At Waterloo he had just won a phenomenal battle at Ligny two days before, after one of the greatest blitzkriegs ever mounted. During his lightning advance, he had managed to separate two major armies who knew he was coming, and inflict simultaneous defeats on both of them. At Waterloo two of the greatest commanders in all of history faced each other. Wellington, master of defense, was in an entrenched position that he had chosen, and counted on the arrival of Blucher. Napoleon considered the Prussians under control by Grouchy, and had von Bulow not arrived in Napoleon’s flank and rear, the French would undoubtedly have won, and we’d be reading about Napoleon’s finest victory, Ney’s brilliant attacks etc.

Oh. But he lost.

Winning and losing is often defined by the slimmest of margins. Sometimes even by chance. But most likely it is defined somewhere within the organization and how the organization, and its people, take action.

That is somewhere within the dependence upon solid visionary direction and independence to react to the situation.

101 days wouldn’t have given Napoleon a victory. It wasn’t time <or the lack of it>. It was more likely the management team <or possibly his lack of effectiveness in communicating what he wanted to a new management team>.

Napoleon is typically judged by his two historical losses … Russia and Waterloo. Geez. Can’t a great general <leader> get a break?

Answer: Nope.

Leaders typically get defined by how they end and not all the good <or not so good> done inbetween. If you want to get things done, this is the burden in doing so.

Anyway.

100 days is a good reminder of what a great leader can do in 100 days as well as how slim a margin moving quickly gives you between victory and loss. But, please, please don’t tell me something can’t get done in a 100 days.

“I struggle to think of anything more miserable than living a life in the wretched hollow of the in between.”

–

me

=============

Ok. This is about Life and, well, having quoted myself to open this piece:

What if that is all there is?

What if life is made up primarily of the inbetween?

And what if it is actually more important than all the other shit we focus on day in and day out?

What if the in-between is the big epic holiday from Life?

——————–

For all we could and should being

In the one life that we’ve got.

Everybody says that time heals everything.

But what of the wretched hollow?

The endless in-between?

Are we just going to wait it out?

Imogene heap (Wait it Out)

——————–

Think about it. If life is a journey <not a destination>, then isn’t the completion of that thought that you are always in between? In between where you were and where you will be <or you are going>. Kind of like living Life constantly in a liminal space.

Geez. That doesn’t sound good. In fact that sounds horrible <to me>. And I imagine to people who have specific aspirations and goals and things they target as “success in life”it is even worse because I bet it sounds an awful like nonsuccess, lack of focus and wasted energy. It sounds like either not knowing where you are supposed to go <which is something that everyone is telling you is the key to happiness> or you are stuck someplace that isn’t moving toward where you want to go.

None of that sounds good. But isn’t inbetween <in this sense> about finding your way? Finding ‘home’ mentally’? Where home, in the sense of ‘where I am going’, remains elusive mentally and physically. Doesn’t it mean you are in the search for, well, whatever it is you are searching for?

That means we are all supposed to be searching <gulp> all our lives.

Ok.

That was generalization.

How about thinking about this as living inbetween on the majority of things all our lives.

Majority? Would it be okay to be in between on all the <85%> things, but ‘where you meant to be’ on the 15%? That suggests you are anchored on the important, or some, things.

Is that good?

Well. As I noted above for me that is still miserable <or at least sounds so>. Not knowing something as important as that seems like it should be in the minority of the time and not the majority <meaning it is okay to ‘not know’ for periods>.

And yet. If you have ever been to a tropical island I would suggest many of the people there live long periods of their life in between – by ‘in between’ I mean simply meandering through Life.

The majority seem to have left something behind but … well … haven’t made any decisions with regard to gaining anything more ahead <tangibly>. In my rat race words they still have not found what they are seeking.

Here is the crazy thing.

They, for the most part, are quite content.

They seem to smile more <good> and maybe bathe less <not so good>.

They may wear the same shirt a couple of days in a row … and it isn’t some fancy designer shirt.

They don’t wear socks and they seem to be in less of a hurry <but almost always seem to get places on time>.

And … well … they seem to smile more.

This all makes me think maybe it is just me. Maybe I am trapped in the American ‘can do’ or ‘should do’ attitude and missing out on what life has to offer when you spend it in the in-between.

I do know that when I am around people who are peacefully existing in the inbetween I seem to wander there into that wretched space. And it doesn’t seem so wretched then. And I wonder. Think. And then it is painful <becoming wretched again>.

Why? I want to know where I am going. I want to know what I should be doing. And I want to be doing something purposeful for someone.

Oh.

Yeah.

But they seem to smile more.

Maybe part of growing up is learning how to be comfortable in the in between and not “being successful” and “having something to show.”

Maybe.

But it seems strange to me.

It seems so far out of my natural DNA the thought of it makes me reach for another cocktail just to calm myself.

Oh.

But they seem to smile more.

I admit. When I see them smiling and they talk to me about their own in between, oddly enough, it reminds me of Alice in Wonderland:

———————-

Alice:“would you tell me please … which way I ought to go from here.”

Cheshire cat:“that depends a good deal on where you want to get to.”

Alice: “I don’t much care.”

Cheshire Cat:“then it doesn’t matter which way you go.”

Alice: “so long as I get somewhere.”

Cheshire Cat:“oh, you’re sure to do that, if only you walk long enough.”

————————-

Look.

I imagine we all reach some crossroads in our lives. Some moments when we question where to go from here.

I am an older guy. I’m supposed to not only know where I am going but I am also supposed to be well on my way to be there <wherever or whatever ‘there’ is>.

Sometimes I feel I have visited ‘there’ already and, well, shit. It wasn’t all it was cracked up to be.

That said. Frankly, lately I wonder about what I will be “when I grow up” <which I imagine is the mature view of ‘where am I going’>. Therefore I do spend some time in that wretched hollow I call ‘the in between.’ And, yup. it is wretched to me.

All my life I have improved businesses, organizations, people and projects. And I love doing that. And I imagine along the way I have improved myself <at least one would hope that was a byproduct>.

At the moment I am doing none of those things <at least on a 100% basis which is what I am used to>.

So what happens next?

I define myself by doing. Unfortunately, in doing that it makes you think — what happens when you stop doing?

Well. I have to stop worrying about how I “did” in the past and just keep doing what I have always believed has created some ‘value’ in Life — just not in the way I used to where organizations counted on me.

Being a salaried employee is comfortable. Doing and providing value daily, if not weekly, is comfortable … at least to me. I don’t know that I am that different from the majority in this sense. Many of us, most of us I believe, like feeling productive. Heck. Most of us like BEING productive <in some form or fashion>.

It is funny. I had this discussion with someone sitting at a bar in the islands. Someone who was comfortable with the inbetween. Mostly comfortable because they defined their Life differently and, frankly, from a pragmatic standpoint had figured out a way to do something that paid the bills without the ongoing stress of where next month’s money is going to come from.

Anyway. Lastly. Here is what I think about in-between and people and today’s culture.

Sometimes people need to be pulled out of the in-between because they do not belong there. They cannot get out on their own.

Wow. That certainly goes against all of today’s “you have to be a self starter” or “you cannot count on anyone but yourself” or “no one is going to do it for you” philosophy being expounded, and pounded, into today’s culture. I say this because I think of this the same as the slippery slope of Life. The in between, just as the slippery slope, is difficult to get off of or out of without a helping hand. This isn’t about not being strong enough or not being enough of a self starter … or not even not being qualified or ‘good enough’ at some work talent … some people just get stuck.

And some of those people are simply better at being in the game than in getting in the game.

I know I tell people to get in the game all the time. Take chances and take some uncomfortable risks. And I am not backing off of that. But there is a difference between doing that while actually in the game then when you are out seeking to get in.

For example, myself, put me in the game and I will play like every second is the last second of the game. I take calculated risks and am relatively fearless in a business environment. But I am also relatively clueless about getting in the game if I am on the sidelines. It is a different skill and a different attitude. This isn’t about avoiding anything … or avoiding choices <or inability to make the hard choices> and it is not even about being lazy; it is simply a different Life skill.

Whew.

This in-between thing can be quite wretched for many of us I imagine.

All I really know is that the conversation I had made me think and the next day at the same bar I had this scribbled on some napkins for them to read <they all bought me drinks after reading>.

I don’t share many things I write personally but try this one out as I ponder ‘what I will be’ and what I will do because I feel like I still have something to offer <professionally>.

And I am currently squarely residing in the in between.

And it is a really uncomfortable place for me.

In fact … I am relatively sure the inbetween is the wretched hollow in Life.

——-

Napkin scribblings at a bar in the Caribbean after a pain killer <or 2>. Oh. This is also probably my first published piece in that the bar owner liked it so much it is now posted behind the bar.

Here you go:

‘tomorrow I was nothing’

tomorrow I was nothing

yesterday I was no more than today

today I was believing that which is was not.

in some little place in between everything i hold on to “I believe in me.”

but

makes you wonder

if we ever reach a day

when we can discern the difference

between

that which is

what was

and what will be

and what we believe,

even in me.

so are we destined to suffocate

in the silent seconds

strewn in the wretched hollow

of the in between

where the only thing seen

are question

after question

after question

of the difference between

what is, what was and what will be.

oh, so i ask Life to wait on things

things that seem practical to the wise

as i wait

for wisdom with closed eyes

hoping all will appear on our fingertips to touch

that which is right from the wrong

and what we can feel may lie unseen in the in between

where it all becomes real

regardless

can you count the Mondays

Life thinks of calling me

and doesn’t?

because in the hollow of the in between

I know that i am you and you are me

and in the grey

in between decisions

seek the light of what is right

despite the fact you sometimes doubt that which is

and aim to the left

where darkness beckons.

in the end

departing the wretched in between

is simply what it is

and always comes back to what was.

so don’t blink

or you may you sink into the in between

of what you think

rather than what you should know

for tomorrow was nothing

and yesterday

was holding your dreams

and today is what is.

——

<please note: I wrote the original for this in 2013 in a very pensive mood while relaxing on an island in-between – pun intended – working on business projects remotely. It is now 2018. I may still wander in the inbetween on occasion and, yes, it is still a wretched place, generally speaking, for me>

“Authority without wisdom is like a heavy axe without an edge, fitter to bruise than polish.”

―

Anne Bradstreet

==============

……… tweet from Republican National Party on June 14, 2018 ………….

(stepping back to January 2017)

Well.

Yesterday was an interestingly disturbing day to begin “the new era of The United States of America.”

I listened to the Trump inauguration speech with growing horror. It had all the trappings of authoritarianism wrapped snugly in a blanket of patriotism & promises of wealth, security, strength and ‘greatness.’

I listened to it not just as a citizen but as a business guy.

Yeah. Populism can be seen in business just as it can be seen in politics. In business it can be called ‘the cult mentality’ and more often than not its leader is a ‘less-than-benevolent’ dictator. Let’s call it a ‘join, or else’ culture. You can drive membership in this culture a couple of ways … both grounded in fear.

Fear of losing <part 1>.Outsiders are trying to steal what is ours … people who don’t believe in what we believe in are trying to steal what is ours … join us because we are the people who count and matter.

I do not want to lose what is rightfully mine.

Fear of losing <part 2>.I am on the outside looking in and … well … holy shit … if I don’t join I am gonna lose everything <or be branded as a non joiner>.

I will join because if I don’t I am up shit creek without a paddle and lose what I have.

Businesses try this shit all the time. It is their way of building a strong culture, claiming it is inclusive, albeit inclusive is grounded by ‘a tight set of club rules.’ They will argue it is not a tight set but rather a basic construct which binds people in a good way … you call it tomato and I call it rotten. This Trump version of populism is, well, it goes beyond corporate cult culture. This version is close to being batshit crazy dangerous thought leadership.

Let’s look at the brochure and talk a minute with the Trump Club recruiter.

The cover of the brochure suggests an unstoppable America, driven solely by self-interest, in other words, our Club wins at all costs at the expense of anyone who stands in our way! <“if you want to win, join us” it says …>.

It further reads with threatening all those who might stand in the way of this Club and it’s winning/great objective. It contains an adamant stance of ‘no real choice’, i.e., a demanded unity not an asked for unity.

Yeah.

Some of the club benefits look awful good in the brochure … more & better jobs, stronger economy, stronger security, less business regulations and country pride. And then I turn over the brochure just to check out the legalese, the cost of the benefits as it were, to explore how the promises of the Club will be delivered.

The headline on the back of the brochure really wanted me to join this club … the message of “join today because today is the day the people become the rulers of this country.” I vaguely remember that being the call of the French Revolution but it sounds cool <although I could swear we, the people, have been voting in people as representatives for awhile>.

But. Whew. It sounds good. I like it.

It feels empowering and inspirational with the added comfort that I will no longer be one of “the forgotten people which will be forgotten no longer.” I know for sure that would like to not be forgotten and being part of a club would be nice and … well … gosh … uhm … now that I think about it … I didn’t know I had been forgotten.

The recruiter leans forward and says “of course you were, the intellectual globalist elite in Washington and around the world have been keeping you down … they don’t care about you … they have forgotten that it was you that made them part of the wealthy elite.”

Ok. But didn’t your Club President build his wealth off the backs of ‘forgotten people’ and … well … it seems like they aren’t any better off but he is a shitload better off, doesn’t it?

Oh … no, no, no … he appreciates everything they have done for him. Hey. And don’t you want to be wealthy too?

I look down at the brochure and I see the bolded ‘make wealthy’ words and have to ask the club recruiter, decked out in an ‘America first’ hat and neatly pressed ‘make America great’ uniform like shirt, I ask the recruiter … “this becoming wealthy thing … its sounds an awful lot like Amway.”

Oh, no, it is nothing like that at all. Our Club will make everything great for everyone and you will have great opportunities to get the wealth you have always deserved, but haven’t got, because the lazy, less than hard working elite will not get it anymore … we will make sure you get your fair share. Hey. Look at this picture of the Club President in his office … check out the gold curtains … the gold rug and the gold fixtures … that is wealth. That is what you can be part of!

Oh.

And, look, if you join today you get a hat <which you should wear as often as possible so that we can tell who is in the club and who isn’t>.

And, even better, we should have some additional pieces of apparel you can wear soon. In fact … we will have special uniforms & badges for the original club members to showcase their elite status in the club … everyone will want to wear them.

Ok. One last question … your club is “God’s chosen.” I didn’t know God chose … I thought he was all about equal among all men. Does this mean that other clubs don’t believe in God or does God just favor us? And does this mean I have to believe in your version of God and … well … what exactly is your version of God?

“Oh.

Well.

We are a Christian based club … but of course we accept anyone. But don’t forget … Christianity, above all, outlines all the values which lead to a better version of yourself … and, well, that is what we want all Club members to be able to achieve. Everyone should have values, don’t you think?”

Whew. This is fucking crazy shit going on

To be clear. A shitload of the club leaders and followers are going to try and draw some false comparisons and equivalents to past American heroes.

To be clear. This is significantly different than Thomas Jefferson’s plea for unity in his inaugural address in 1800 — “every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.”

The Trump club has one principle and one opinion.

There is no room for anything else. More important than color of skin, religion, gender … this may actually be my root concern with ‘the club’.

The main principle?

Believe what I believe … or you are not a true believer.

That kind of seems to be the club. Kind of an “us versus them” attitude … uhm … although us <being a US citizen> is actually also them <being US citizens>.

“Oh no … no … why wouldn’t you believe in the United States of America if you lived in there? … everyone believes that. And if they don’t? … well … they should.”

Anyway. Oh. One last question. I didn’t hear it anywhere from the Club President or see it in the brochure … do you guys have a constitution?

Oh, we don’t need one. We just demand a ‘total allegiance to the Club’ … oh … which believes the same things as the country wants … so you should be all for it.”

(ME) Gosh. I am not sure I can join this club … I already have a constitution I live by … and my allegiance is, first & foremost, to that and not some Club and how they think. <period … end of statement>

Look. The one thing Trump was 100% right on is that January 20, 2017 was the dawn of a new era.

“Now comes the hour of action.”

That was the call for the Trump Club. “Join or else”is what should be heard.

Just to be clear.

I am a believer in God <however you want to define it>.

I am a patriot <however you want to define it>.

I am a proud American <however you want to define it>.

But I am not joining the club called “Trump America.”

In fact … I say ‘fuck you and your fucking club.’

As for what I will do? …………….

===============

“I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest.”

“In a dream world, everyone is treated with the same amount of respect. But until we reach that goal, I will lend my ear, I will lend my voice to any boy, girl, man or woman who does not feel like they can protect themselves.”

———-

Jennifer Lawrence

===========

Well. When you get to my age you sometimes pause and think “has anything I have done really made a difference.”

I tend to believe it is a reflective thing we naturally do because most of us have invested gobs of energy in some career, gobs of energy outside of the workplace with home & family responsibilities as well as gobs of energy in at least some ‘self fulfillment’ stuff.

We kind of want to assess life in maybe an ROI type way. That ROI idea may sound a little weird but starting all the way in grade school where they pound into your head you should be involved in extracurricular activities <on top of schoolwork> all the way throughout your career you tend to measure your Life in an “energy to achievement” ratio way.

To be clear <part 1>.

We draft resumes being encouraged to espouse “differences we made on a business” wherein we take basic responsibilities, shit we are paid to do, and stretch it out into some dramatic outcome. Our professional lives seem to be driven into some simplistic ‘where I made a difference’ encapsulation which sadly derives it of the true rich & royal hues.

And, yeah, that matters. It matters because it is, more often than not, in those swirling colors where you personally find satisfaction – and meaning. And, yet, almost all of us distill our differences into simplistic black & white terms. Or, in other words, we are encouraged to sell ourselves as “I am a good ROI.”

Now.

To be clear <part 2>.

This ‘pause & think’ isn’t about doubting any personal ability, or smarts or even accomplishments. I assume I am not that different than most people my age that I assume I have some ability, some smarts and some accomplishments.

The ‘pause & think’ is more about the ‘degree of.’

Am I really that good?

Am I really that smart?

Are my accomplishments really that good?

You start thinking … well … about whether you have truly made a difference or if your “wins & accomplishments” were simply pedantic grind-it-out every day shit and that your losses were losses that didn’t mean anything anyway. Or, in other words, we are encouraged to think of our lives as “was I a good ROI.”

Now.

If you truly think about that … well … you start thinking about what you have done and ROI.

=================

“Hey, if I am going to lose, let me lose doing something.”

Sam Seaborne

=================

Ok. I say all that because I received a couple of unexpected messages recently. The kind of messages that makes you pause & think … “maybe I did make a little bit of difference in some corner of the world”:

—————

Hi Bruce! I hope you’re doing well! It’s been a little while since we’ve talked. I just caught up with +++++ and a group of <college> students in Chicago last week. You set such a great example of leadership and teaching young people, including myself, a few years ago. I can only hope to have the same impact on this new group of students. I sincerely hope you’re doing well and I hope to keep in touch!

—————————–

Thank you so much, Bruce. You know I think about the day you pulled me into that little conference room at 151 W. 4th Street to tell me you were bringing me on to +++++++ – a lot. You saved my career that day. I will always be grateful to you for teaching me so much over the course of that year. Thank you for everything.

——————–

I am fairly sure no one gets a lot of these messages so I am fairly sure almost everyone cherishes them. They reflect some “return” on whatever we have invested.

But. You know. It is quite possible I look at ‘making a difference’ and my own personal ROI a little differently than a lot of other people. I know I would love to leave behind a legacy-like idea but, maybe more importantly, I would like to leave behind a legacy of ‘he made a difference’ – however that comes to Life.

That drives me and what I do and say <and write>.

The dilemma with pursuing thinking like this is although it has a high appeal for success <because it means ‘something’> it is difficult, time consuming, <honestly> has a relatively low chance of success and is not the kind of thinking that really pays the bills. I imagine any life ‘purpose’ decision, combined with the fact you have to sustain and maintain everyday life responsibilities at exactly the same time, makes you ponder this unfortunate dilemma.

I can unequivocally state anyone who makes a conscious decision to ‘want to make a difference’ should make sure they think that decision through. It is not one to be made flippantly and while I shared a couple of notes which makes it all worthwhile to me … mostly … you do not get much positive feedback.

That said.

I will offer a thought as you think about the dilemma.

Some guy named John William Atkinson wrote Motivational Determinants of risk-taking Behavior in Psychological Review in 1957. He suggested that if you can choose the grade of complexity <difficulty> of a task most of the decisions are taken in a mid-complexity-level.

Highly motivated people often choose a realistic complexity of tasks whereas low motivated people choose tasks that are finally to easy or too difficult for them.

But. Here is where I think I would sit good ole JW Atkinson down and have a debate. If I set aside the fact bills have to be paid at some point I would say he doesn’t give ‘appeal of success’ enough emphasis. Especially if the appeal of success is tied to “doing something” or maybe better said ‘doing something that may truly matter.’

Huh? As Sam Seaborne says “if I am gonna lose let me lose doing something.” What I mean is that if you consciously decide to ‘go big and win big <or lose big>’ your satisfaction criteria changes and, therefore, you are willing to plow your way through more complexity and difficulty.

Look. I don’t think I am different than most people. We all want to ‘do something.’ Deep in our heart of hearts we want to know that we have done something that matters. I imagine, in a ‘big impact’ thought kind of way, somewhere in all of us we would like to leave the world a better place than the way we found it <and everyone can define the extent of ‘better place’ in their own minds>.

A friend of mine once pointed out that this ‘go big ideal’ can often simply be making a smaller difference in someone’s life. He is right. And if that is as good as it gets, well, that ain’t bad. But sometimes the desire to ‘do something’ is bigger than individuals or individual moments. That doesn’t make it ‘better’ … just bigger. Bigger as in my case I take ‘world’ literally and not figuratively.

That ‘bigger’ matters because Atkinson is suggesting that the size of the ‘do something’ legacy task can often lead to a complexity that increasingly makes it difficult to be successful <but the prize more tantalizing>. I think what he misses is that a desire to make a difference can shake the etch a sketch mentally.

Anyway.

At some point I think we all make some decisions on whether to compromise ‘greater purpose’ versus ‘everyday grind it out needs & responsibilities.’ Day to day responsibilities <not just bills but true responsibility to others who count on you> is a real life factor in whatever you decide to do or not do. It’s not like you have a blank Life sheet and put on it “do something that matters.”

The sheet is never blank.

You have cars, mortgages, children, mates/partners, work obligations, general shit that needs to get done. In fact … if you think about it too much you will start thinking “holy shit, I want to make a difference but how the hell does it all happen?”

Well.

In the kindest sense you learn to balance or juggle.

In its harshest sense you compromise.

I would argue far too many of us confuse those two things and more of us actually compromise than we do juggle. And I fear compromising has left far too many people numb to life … or maybe just numb to their dreams. Or maybe, more specifically, numb to ‘doing something.’ or, maybe worse, numb to making a difference.

Me? I think I have always had some fear of that numbness if I end up compromising and avoid it like the plague.

I don’t know. What I DO know is that when you get to my age you focus a lot less on the ‘what did I do’ and ‘what did I not do’ and ‘compromise’ and a lot more on “difference achieved.’

Sure. I, as everyone else, certainly want to be happy. Live. And love. And be loved. Travel. See things. Meet people. Meet more people. Learn. And have offered some value in all that.

But, today, it all seems to come down to “doing something that matters.”

====================

“The biggest human temptation is to settle for too little.”

Thomas Merton

=============

Did I really do something that can leave the world a better place?

Did I really do something that made a difference?

Atkinson is/was probably a shitload smarter than I but I gotta tell ya … even with all of his complexity & poor likelihood to succeed thinking … well … in my mind if you even have a glimmer of hope of getting to do something big … something really big … something that matters in a big way … something that someone would know really made a difference … well … I don’t know … I think you gotta go for it. It sure seems like you would want to do something, anything, which lends a voice to those who aspire to greater things themselves.

I mean … what the hell … if, in the end, I am going to lose … or look like a loser … well … I want to know I lost doing something. In my mind I want to work hard at making a difference so that at some point … when all is said and done … there was a bunch of people saying “I wish I had sent Bruce a note.”

‘Cause I don’t need the notes. I just need to know I made a difference.

Just to close off this thought:

====================

“You know the Greeks didn’t write obituaries, they only asked one question after a man died, ‘Did he have passion?’”

quote from the movie Serendipity

====================

Even at my age making a difference can happen starting today. As I wrote in my obituary post years ago:

An obituary is not about what you can undo from what is done. You don’t undo. It’s about moving on.

That, my friends, is a big thought.

Because a lot of people want to go back and fix or ‘undo.’

Once again.

You can’t.

But obituaries can be written at any time. In fact. Many obituaries are written … well … when they are written … and that means they are written with “what is” as the case and point.I guess what I am suggesting is that you can choose to unburden yourself from the past at any point. The good, the bad, the indifferent … none really matter.

Write your obituary from today on.

In other words … start making a difference today if you have not already. In other words … seek to maximize your ROI to the world around you.

“I’m so scared of dying without ever being really seen. Can you understand? “

—

David Foster Wallace

===========

“I did something and it was never seen.”

Someone’s grave stone

=======================

Ok.

This is written as I ponder my legacy, legacies in general, and my 2100st post.

7 years 7 months 4 days.

91 months 4 days.

396 weeks 1 day.

2773 days.

2100 posts.

A little over 5 posts a week for over 7 years.

2,100,000+ words <a conservative estimate>.

My words and thoughts over the 2100 posts have remained consistent … on November 18th 2009 I wrote my first Enlightened Conflict post and 6 days later I offered my second post and wrote this:

… it is in my DNA to be “constantly preoccupied with possibilities of new combinations.” Now. That can make me a pain in the ass to work with. One time a mentor, and a manager I loved working for, once said to me, “sometimes you are a pain in the ass, but I am glad you are my pain in the ass.”

If you don’t want to be “nudged” into new ideas and creative solutions – don’t ever call Bruce McTague. If, however, you want to look at things through a different telescope and find 3-dimensional ideas you’ve never considered, call Bruce now. Not tomorrow. He’ll make you uncomfortable, but I firmly believe that if the idea doesn’t make you uneasy, it’s not a big idea. Easy to work with, but always stretching your mind, Bruce is a true business Partner. You’ll grow working with Bruce.

2100 posts later and I am still a contrarian, still snarky, still writing about the possibility of new combinations and still a pain in the ass.

But with almost everything I write I try and offer pain in the ass type thinking … not fluff. On November 30th 2009 I wrote this: communicating meaningful information so people can make meaningful choices.

I am still not a nudger and I am absolutely unflinchingly focused on communicating meaningful information, thoughts & ideas so people can make meaningful choices and think meaningful thoughts.

Well.

All that said.

At 2100 you have a tendency to sit back and wonder what happens if I actually

did something in my Life and nobody notices it when I am gone?

And before you think this topic is bullshit or “that’s not something I worry/think about” take a second and think about this.

Why do so many people buy symbolic bricks with names on it on a wall somewhere?

Why do we put stars in the ground with people’s names on it?

Why do we have gravestones and epitaphs?

We do these things because we want people to remember at least something about us. It doesn’t have to be big … but … well … something for god’s sake.

All of that leads me to legacies.

Everyone leaves something behind … some footprint.

With me … my largest footprint <at the moment> would be everything I have written.

Which makes me slightly wonder what happens with my 2100+ pieces on Enlightened Conflict … does somebody stumble across them and publish some or do they fade way into the nothingness of ‘something done but never seen’?

Will someone own my words & thoughts when I am gone?

I wrote recently that I own my words and thoughts … therefore … in some way I assume they must have some value <at least to me> … maybe just pennies but of some value.

It would be nice to think some of these thoughts get passed around from person to person like pennies — everyone has some, they are often overlooked until needed to complete a transaction and are annoying when you realize you left some in a pocket when you do the laundry.

But most importantly I see these pennies being used to create a transaction. In my mind … in this case the transaction is thinking … and maybe a purchase against what I see as the true corruption of our age … ignorance.

Montaigne:

The corruption of the age is made up by the particular contribution of every individual man; some contribute treachery, others injustice, irreligion, tyranny, avarice, cruelty, according to their power; the weaker sort contribute folly, vanity, and idleness; of these I am one. It seems as if it were the season for vain things, when the hurtful oppress us; in a time when doing ill is common, to do but what signifies nothing is a kind of commendation.

I admit that I believe these types of pennies are becoming more and more valuable.

I believe that because I worry that time is currently painting a portrait of disappearing thought in which all who see this portrait are corrupted by what they can no longer see … and walk away thinking ignorance is beautiful.

Yeah.

That corruption breeds a sense of everything changing … but in an invisible way. We only see the change in a low level slightly nagging unease & unhappiness. In a way our moral & character health deteriorates despite our relentless pursuit of feeling better through pills, supplements & absurd self improvement plans.

Mentally our focus shifts toward what is visible and away from the invisible <that which creates the unease> and we fixate on what we think we know rather than unlearning what we know.

We stop engaging with thought … and even engaging with the thoughtful people <the intellectuals — real & faux> because it is … well … easier.

The sad truth is that we are largely doing all of this corruption to ourselves. We do so because conflict is necessary to make the invisible visible … but conflict, and making the invisible visible, is hard & sometimes hurtful.

What does this have to do with a legacy?

I could argue that if your thinking is invisible in some way … possibly a big way … you run the risk of becoming so invisible that when you leave there remains no footprint to mark your steps in Life.

I imagine leaving Life as an invisible person has little appeal to anyone. Not that you desire to be the most visible person in the world just that you would prefer knowing that when you were gone who you were just became completely invisible.

Please note that I am not tying visible to any success but rather thinking <although I imagine it could be tied to ‘doing something that may truly matter’>.

And, while I am talking about the legacy I personally want to leave behind, I would imagine this thought bleeds into almost everyone’s Life. Yeah, in this case, I don’t think I am different than most people.

We all would prefer to not be corrupted by ignorance and we would prefer to want to ‘do something’ and, preferably, something dynamic beyond our own purposes.

=====

“[My ultimate goal is] to leave this world a better person, and for me to not be the only one who knows it.”

—

Gavin DeGraw

=============

Ah.

But the idea of being dynamic beyond your own purposes is fraught with peril.

It means … well … dreaming big. Okay. It means thinking big <and, yes, I do believe far too often we aim too small and too low>.

As for me and my thinking big?

I want to attack ignorance as if it is the enemy and, looking back, the majority of my 2100 posts have relentlessly unflinchingly, never nudging, attacked ignorance. I have done so using the idea of Enlightened Conflict as a North Star.

I believe conflict of thoughts is healthy and believe vocalizing the conflict is necessary for progress. I believe Conflict is natural and will always exist – between countries, religious beliefs, ideologies, the haves and the have nots, etc.

And I believe with my writing I have a unique opportunity to insure conflict of thinking can be managed to some extent by encouraging positive conflict or enabling conflict with rules.

I debate with people … I write about thinking … I defend our youth … I rant about the old way of thinking … and, lately, I have found a muse in Donald J Trump <in fact … my 2101st post is a Trump business lesson>.

Trump has offered me the opportunity to have a living breathing example of almost everything I detest in business leadership, business acumen and how a business shouldn’t be run.

I do not detest him as a person <I don’t know him> I just detest how he conducts himself as a leader and a business person. He has reminded me that passion can inspire thinking and writing and reminds me that business sometimes needs to stop nudging and be more demanding of what is right & good.

Regardless.

In the end … all I want is some enlightened thinking and new ways of looking at things and often, as a contrarian, I will use someone or something as a foil to make a comparative.

This style and way of thinking has proven to be a good timeless way of approaching things because should you view a post in my first 100 you would find it is still relevant and will still contain thoughts you may find scattered in my last 100 posts.

Anyway.

One last thought on legacies — compromising.

I still worry about compromising.

I know I have some fear that compromising has left far too many people numb to life … or maybe just numb to their dreams. Or maybe more specifically numb to ‘doing something that matters’ and, certainly, numb to thinking and new thoughts.

I still worry about me compromising. And maybe I fear that numbness if I end up compromising.

I kind of think this is a legitimate fear.

I, as everyone else, certainly want to be happy. Live. And love. And be loved. Read. Travel. See things. Meet people. Meet more people. And learn. And unlearn. And learn some more. Nowhere in there do I see compromise … I only see doing shit. And, in my eyes, nor do I see any ‘nudging’ but rather unflinching doing.

Yes. Doing something unflinchingly.

Because doing something unflinchingly that can leave the world a better place?

Whew.

I gotta tell ya … if you even have a glimmer of hope of getting to do something big … something really big … something that matters in a big way … something that someone would recognize someday as a legacy idea … well … I don’t know. It kind of seems like you have to go for it – uncomprisningly and unflinchingly.

I have to think that if am going to lose, I want to know I lost doing something and not losing because I compromised in some way.

That said.

I don’t want to be known for writing 2000 posts, or however many I end up writing, I would like to have a legacy suggesting I did something that mattered <and someone could point to what that something was>.

In the end.

2100 posts and counting.

I very rarely have duplicated a thought, I have never run out of new quotes to share and I have never had “writer’s block” or not had something to write and, yet, I have consistently pounded on stupid & senseless business acumen and the misguided tripe people are fed with regard to Life.

That sounds big … and, yet, small at the same time. I have to imagine whether someone has written as much as I or not … most people will find that they have done something that sounds big but may look small in the harsh light of reality.

The only way I know to build a meaningful legacy <making what may appear small big> is to do what I do … not nudge and be absolutely unflinchingly focused on communicating meaningful information, thoughts & ideas so people can make meaningful choices and think meaningful thoughts.

And, yet, sure … I still do wonder what will happen to everything I have written because … well … at the moment they are my legacy. I imagine I am not alone in thinking that “I did something and it was never seen” on my headstone isn’t really what anyone wants.

For now all I can do is insure that I do something meaningful in a ‘non-nudging way’ and hope it gets noticed.

——————————–

About the author:

Bruce McTague is probably considered a sometimes irascible pragmatic contrarian. At the same time he is most likely considered a naïve believer in the inherent good in people and believer in the value of Hope as an engine for real progress.

He has been called cynical and optimistic.

And because of all of that he believes Life, just as people, are a complex bundle of contradictions therefore simplicity is often that refuge of fools.

He believes there is no problem or conflict that cannot be solved if people are willing to face harsh truths and make the hard decisions. He also believes that the world would be a much better place if everyone would spend just a little more time unlearning what they have learned, think a little bit more and that we would all benefit if we became better at articulating our thoughts.

Lastly, in the end, he believes that everyone everywhere deserves to have hope.

================

“I don’t want to be remembered.

Memories age and you might remember words I whispered in your car but you’ll forget how my voice made your name sound safe. You will faintly remember that there was once warmth in my touch but the skin on your chest where my hands made a home is cold now.

Time will steal all the sharp edges that made it seem real. Years will rob you blind and you’ll simply be living with my blurry ghost.

That’s worse than being forgotten, so confuse me with another girl in a coffee shop and change my name in future stories. Walk down memory lane and unlock the exit.

Ignore the ghost that packs up the memories and leaves and do me one last favor; shut the door behind me. “

(He who is silent, when he ought to have spoken and was able to, is taken to agree)

—

Latin saying

======

Here is a poser of a question for everyone.

…. “Do you need some qualification to have a valid perspective on what is right versus what is wrong? … and, maybe more importantly, is there some qualification which disqualifies you from having a valid perspective on what is right versus what is wrong?”

Well.

Where am I going with this?

I have some friends who are adamantly opposed to anything any celebrity says.

They will disregard their words <no matter what they say> as some out-of-touch person spouting some out-of-touch liberal ramblings.

They believe their livelihood disqualifies them from speaking out on things.

And they are not the only ones.

All you have to do is scan the comments under any online article discussing any celebrity – the section will be strewn with “why listen to anything they say” or “Hollyweird blathering” or “out-of-touch rich elite.”

Ok.

It all seems kind of nuts to me.

And slightly stupid to sweepingly disregard anything that … well … anyone says.

But.

I am the guy who would sit down with Willie, the guy who delivered the mail at one my past jobs, because I not only was interested in what he thought and said … but actually wondered if he were smarter than maybe half the people I worked with in the office <plus … he was a great guy>.

But.

I am the guy who sat down with a famous musician, one of those creative out-of-touch liberal types, because I was not only interested in what they had to think and say … but actually thought the fact they had duked it out bar gig after bar gig before they made the bigger bucks kind of made them a little more enlightened than half the people I knew.

I am the guy who … well … it would seem to me that the only qualification one needs is to have a ‘well used brain’ with which well-articulated words come forth.

So, no, I don’t disregard what celebrities say.

Now.

That doesn’t mean I don’t have my own opinions or that any celebrity shapes my thinking or that I can think that some of them are really out-of-touch with reality … but … I care about what anyone says.

I care because most people who have had a different life experiences than I <and celebrities certainly qualify in that category> and I like to try to put myself in their shoes and see shit like they do.

And, you know what? A shitload of people have a shitload of good thoughts <and this includes celebrities>.

But getting back to my opening question and how I am supposed to judge qualifications before listening to someone.

Suggesting Ben Affleck and Shia Labeouf/Kim Kardasian’s words & thoughts should be considered equally is … well … absurd.

To think that Nicki Minaj, Dave Grohl, Billie Jo Armstrong or Selena Gomez can’t say smart, thoughtful, insightful things about issues that should matter to us because Kanye West or Justin Bieber act like immature incoherent asshats is … well … absurd.

To think that any celebrity cannot have some meaningful thought to share is … well … absurd.

All of this kind of hit me this morning as I scanned headlines to read that Meryl Streep had slammed Trump in some speech at one of those stupid Hollywood awards things. And that, of course, she had said something that Trump felt compelled to tweet in response that she was ‘overrated.’

<which reminded me of one of my favorite Onion headlines: “Court Rules Meryl Streep Unable To Be Tried By Jury As She Has No Peers” on December 3, 2011>

First of all … she didn’t ‘slam’ Trump … she simply made a valid point for all people in mentor & leadership positions … she just made Trump the example for everyone to think about.

Second of all … Trump is an asshat for not only in his thin-skinned attitude to drive a response to any criticism … but also his inappropriate responding to someone in a non-equal power position in a diminishing way as well as also for suggesting Streep as being overrated <which 97.2% of people would recognize as just being a stupid nontruth>.

Third of all … while maybe her comments were directed at Trump … every leader, every public figure, and certainly everyone in congress who claims to represent people should have paid particular attention to one thought:

“This instinct to humiliate, when it’s modeled by someone in the public platform, by someone powerful, it filters down into everyone’s life because it kind of gives permission for other people to do the same thing.

—-

“Disrespect invites disrespect, violence invites violence. When the powerful use their position to bully others we all lose.”

Fourth of all … suggesting Meryl Streep only represents a small slice of America, especially said by anyone who has a brain, is absurdly simplistic vapid thinking. If you listen to her words, they represent an idea that IS America:

When the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose.

And.

Disrespect invites disrespect, i.e., when a leader disrespects any of their followers, diminishes the thoughts & words of any one citizen, employee or individual … that invites disrespect in return.

I have written about this before <but I am not as famous as Meryl nor am I as articulate>.

What our leaders do and say and how they act toward each other as well as toward others sets an example for people. Their followers <believers> will parrot aspects and children will start thinking it is the right way to behave — all the time.

Sure.

The public figures may argue … “oh, that was situational … I was simply trying to make a point and share a belief.”

Well.

It doesn’t work that way.

Many times the everyday schmuck, like me, cannot see the entire context … I only view the example and the point made.

And while I may choose to follow one example and dismiss another … everyone will judge their ‘follow or dismiss’ on their own. That means the ‘situational’, the one tweet suggesting someone is dishonest or overrated, or the hyperbole-driven unequivocal stance on some issue … becomes the behavioral example for a shitload of people.

That said.

What I do know is that disrespect invites disrespect and when the powerful use their position to bully … a shitload of people start thinking that is the way to actually become powerful & a leader.

Which leads me back to the thought that hearing something from someone like Streep and thinking that having an opinion that doesn’t agree with yours is simply the rantings of some ‘self-important’ person is … well … absurd.

Frankly, it implies your own opinions are so weak and shallow that they can’t withstand some well-articulated opinion or thought or criticism <even from some ‘overrated, out-of-touch’ celebrity>.

Regardless.

Al that absurdity aside … I have a bigger concern with disregarding good thoughts & opinions <no matter who they come from>.

I imagine part of my personal concern is … well twofold:

The first is exactly what Streep said … disrespect begets disrespect.

Let’s call this ‘Role modeling.’

I want all adults to be role models for children. I know I pay particular attention to my own words & behavior if I believe a young person will see or hear.

And maybe I do so, and expect other leaders to do so, because I expect role modeling to incorporate showcasing “how you win matters.”

And maybe it is because I expect role modelling to incorporate showcasing “winning without diminishing.”

I believe role models pave the way for showing that getting shit done matters, winning can matter … but how you do the shit and how you get the win is what matters the most.

Do I believe a role model can be clever or crafty with regard to getting that they want done? Sure.

But it shouldn’t come at the expense of the dignity of the win itself or respect for the adversary and situation.

Therefore, while I abhor someone in a power position disrespecting the employee, or the citizen, as an individual I even more abhor disrespecting how the game is played, how the win is achieved or how the discourse is managed.

The second is global perspective.

Like it or not … people in other countries have a variety of perceptions with regard to the United States.

That said.

To many people in other countries Donald Trump will become America … and either embody some negative beliefs, perceptions or attitudes or create some beliefs, perceptions and attitude.

If I win acting like all those things that I suggested Trump will characterize … that is how my ‘win’ and ‘greatness’ will be defined.

How you win … how you are ‘great‘ … matters.

All that said.

Global perspective.

I certainly cannot generalize an entire population but when America voted for this self-obsessed idiot it plays into what Green Day called “the American Idiot” image that many people globally WANT to think America is.

At some point I want my leader to less exhibit idiot behavior and more leader behavior.

Ok.

Going back to my main question.

Not only what qualifications does someone have to have to have a valid perspective ? … but what qualifications does someone have to have to be listened to?

And … what qualifications disqualify someone from being listened to?

I don’t know Meryl Streep personally nor do I really know anything about the woman nor do I have an opinion on her acting skills.

I really can only judge her by her words and her actions.

I would imagine that is what we should do with all people.

On that point I would also note she said in her short speech … “Tommy Lee Jones said to me, isn’t it such a privilege, Meryl, just to be an actor? …Yeah, it is. And we have to remind each other of the privilege and the responsibility of the act of empathy.”

I am fine with listening to her even moreso when I hear her say things like that.

But.

And this is a big but.

I didn’t need that.

I can, and will, listen to anyone. I figure even while I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer I am certainly smart enough to discern if someone is saying something useful or not and form my own opinions & thoughts & beliefs.

And I say all of that because … well … on the off chance someone, even a celebrity, can inform my opinions, thoughts & beliefs … you can damn well be sure I am gonna be listening.

Look.

Ignore who says the words and think about the words. If they make sense, then maybe the person is making sense. I do not need to see someone’s qualifications to listen nor am I willing to disqualify someone’s opinions & thoughts because of their ‘qualifications’ or what they do for a living.

But, hey, that’s me.

the full transcript of Streep’s speech:

Thank you, Hollywood foreign press. Just to pick up on what Hugh Laurie said. You and all of us in this room, really, belong to the most vilified segments in American society right now. Think about it. Hollywood, foreigners, and the press. But who are we? And, you know, what is Hollywood anyway? It’s just a bunch of people from other places.

I was born and raised and created in the public schools of New Jersey. Viola [Davis] was born in a sharecropper’s cabin in South Carolina, and grew up in Central falls, Rhode Island. Sarah Paulson was raised by a single mom in Brooklyn. Sarah Jessica Parker was one of seven or eight kids from Ohio. Amy Adams was born in Italy. Natalie Portman was born in Jerusalem. Where are their birth certificates? And the beautiful Ruth Negga was born in Ethiopia, raised in ― no, in Ireland, I do believe. And she’s here nominated for playing a small town girl from Virginia. Ryan Gosling, like all the nicest people, is Canadian. And Dev Patel was born in Kenya, raised in London, is here for playing an Indian raised in Tasmania.

Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners. If you kick ‘em all out, you’ll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts. They gave me three seconds to say this. An actor’s only job is to enter the lives of people who are different from us and let you feel what that feels like. And there were many, many, many powerful performances this year that did exactly that, breathtaking, passionate work.

There was one performance this year that stunned me. It sank its hooks in my heart. Not because it was good. There was nothing good about it. But it was effective and it did its job. It made its intended audience laugh and show their teeth. It was that moment when the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter, someone he outranked in privilege, power, and the capacity to fight back. It kind of broke my heart when I saw it. I still can’t get it out of my head because it wasn’t in a movie. It was real life.

And this instinct to humiliate, when it’s modeled by someone in the public platform, by someone powerful, it filters down into everybody’s life, because it kind of gives permission for other people to do the same thing. Disrespect invites disrespect. Violence incites violence. When the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose.

This brings me to the press. We need the principled press to hold power to account, to call them on the carpet for every outrage. That’s why our founders enshrined the press and its freedoms in our constitution. So I only ask the famously well-heeled Hollywood Foreign Press and all of us in our community to join me in supporting the committee to protect journalists. Because we’re going to need them going forward. And they’ll need us to safeguard the truth.

One more thing. Once when I was standing around on the set one day whining about something, we were going to work through supper, or the long hours or whatever, Tommy Lee Jones said to me, isn’t it such a privilege, Meryl, just to be an actor. Yeah, it is. And we have to remind each other of the privilege and the responsibility of the act of empathy. We should all be very proud of the work Hollywood honors here tonight.

“In my opinion, we don’t devote nearly enough scientific research to finding a cure for jerks.”

================

Well.

I am not sure there is anything worse a person can do in my eyes than to embrace purposeful ignorance. I may actually believe it is worse than lying.

Technically, purposeful ignorance occurs when a person knows the truth but chooses to ignore it, or the person refuses to abandon false beliefs and pursue the development of further knowledge.

According to the Urban Dictionary willful ignorance is: “the practice or act of intentional and blatant avoidance, disregard or disagreement with facts, empirical evidence and well-founded arguments because they oppose or contradict your own existing personal beliefs.”

But, to me, there are three levels of purposeful ignorance:

accepted ignorance: I have an attitude, perception or belief and I go about my life doing nothing to engage my thinking and expand what I know <unlearning avoidance is what I call this>

confirmed ignorance: with the intent to show everyone that I am not ignorant I actually proactively engage in news & opinion offerors … uhm … but I only do so with those who have the same attitudes, perceptions and beliefs that I do <learning how to better articulate what I already think is what I call this>.

ignorant ignorance: I actively engage with people who have different views and maybe even have some discussions and give the impression I am open minded … but even while nodding my head sagely I am simply building additional walls around what I already believe and think <listening without listening is what I call this>

The last of those three is the most heinous type of ignorance. You actually have the opportunity to learn and you choose to not learn diddleysquat.

It is heinous to me because there are gobs of well-intended people who are smart but just don’t actively engage in learning new shit because … well … they got shit to do.

Do I like that they are unengaged in learning & unlearning? No.

Can I see how it could happen? Yes.

In addition … almost every single one of us have moments of purposeful ignorance.

At its worst it is a conscious choice to be ignorant rather than challenge themselves and acknowledge a truth about reality.

At its best we have simply bucketed some things in our minds as ‘decided’ in order to short cut some things and invest energy in others <and we all do the this>.

To be clear on this issue.

The reason I think people who do the third type of purposeful ignorance should be strapped to some pole and whipped is because they are consciously & actively being ignorant while most of us accept our ignorance because we admittedly like to think we understand things and we certainly understand that challenging what we already believe is difficult.

For most of us challenging what we believe is difficult because it means admitting that beliefs are subject to change and some could actually be wrong … and … well … we feel much more comfortable thinking that some things are just etched in stone.

This is not denial this is simply avoidance.

And we all do it on occasion.

But we also do not go through the motions of publicly showcasing that we are actively listening to try and challenge our beliefs.

We accept them and observe them and articulate them.

That’s it.

And maybe this is simple laziness in not wanting to have to do the work to rethink opinions & beliefs and unlearning shit we thought we knew and then having to explain why we change dour minds and … well … you get it.

Our closemindedness is mostly driven by avoidance <purposeful or not>.

And I even give some people a break on this topic.

Psychological research tells us that some people are cognitively complex while others prefer cognitive simplicity, in other words, some people are open to experience while other are closed minded.

Some people are cognitively flexible while others are cognitively rigid.

I could suggest that those who are cognitively simple, closed minded and/or rigid are much more likely to engage in the ‘accepted ignorance’ level of purposeful ignorance that I noted earlier.

These are not stupid people by any stretch of the imagination and they most certainly have the ability to be ‘smart’ <or broader in thinking> … they are simply people who would rather be comfortably ignorant rather than ‘intellectually smart’.

In addition … Urban Dictionary suggests that some people are “cognitive misers“, i.e., they do not to examine things intellectually if they don’t feel they have to.

And another valid reason is … well … conformity. While this sounds ‘sheeplike’ it is not always. We all engage in some aspects of conformity because it helps us not only fit in but provide us with some daily stability which permits us to engage our energy elsewhere. That is why a shitload of people tend to believe what those around them believe because questioning those beliefs would lead to conflict, possibly rejection and … well … energy investment.

And, look, there are some nice benefits to conforming.

Conformists have the greater potential to find a mate, or mates, to climb the social ladder of “success,” to have others speak well of them and to enjoy the benefits of a social support system.

And, with all that said, you know what? I can live with that.

As much as a curious, always seeking truth, person like me finds purposeful ignorance to be an egregious & utter lack of responsibility to living Life to its fullest and being engaged in Life … in general … I accept that there are some acceptable versions of purposeful ignorance <and, yet, I will do anything I can to break thru to these people and engage in some thoughtful thinking>.

I absolutely believe that learning and unlearning, is a lifelong process and ultimately leads to a fuller, richer Life. I will participate in learning/unlearning through my own discussions and I will engage with anyone, anywhere, on any topic, at any time.

I understand that deeply ingrained purposeful ignorance is incredibly difficult to change but I also never, ever, underestimate people’s capacity for change.

I will continue to be interested in the views of others, even where I disagree with them, and I will always be interested in understanding why others act and think in the way that they do.

I believe the importance of this type of relevant knowledge mainly resides in the ultimate negotiation of ‘what will be.’ in other words … how we, as people, achieve the best possible outcomes.

And that is why I will end here.

My third level of purposeful ignorance, “Ignorant ignorance”, is evil.

And it takes an evil person to consciously commit it.

I cannot even attempt to understand how someone could fuck with learning & unlearning in such a purposeful manner. Faking learning, or an interest in learning … or faking sincere curiosity … is maybe the most heinous act one could commit.

They are jerks. And, unfortunately, we have no scientific research for a cure for jerks.